Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumRetiring Calif. officers want to keep assault guns
Retiring Calif. officers want to keep assault guns
SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- A statewide lobbying group for police officers said Thursday it will pursue legislation next year that would allow officers to keep assault weapons after they retire, seeking to overturn an opinion issued last year by the state attorney general's office.
Peace officers can own assault weapons that are illegal for civilians to buy, even for officers' off-duty use. The Associated Press reported Wednesday that more than 7,600 officers have bought such firearms since the state began allowing the practice a decade ago. The weapons must be registered with the state Department of Justice.
Officers who buy assault weapons must give them up when they retire or leave law enforcement because they no longer qualify as peace officers under California law, then-Attorney General Jerry Brown said in an official opinion issued last December.
Brown based the decision on several court rulings, state law and lawmakers' intent when they exempted law enforcement from the state's assault weapons ban in 2001. He issued the ruling days before he was sworn in as governor.
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/22/4140836/retiring-calif-officers-want-to.html#storylink=cpy
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)It's not hard to do with popular rifles such as AR-15 variants.
BiggJawn
(23,051 posts)That ought to fix it, right?
Or are we talking full-auto machine guns here.
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)If not, it's the most ridiculous non-issue I've ever heard.
BiggJawn
(23,051 posts)"Christmas Story" got a "NC-17" rating for the Red Ryder...
one-eyed fat man
(3,201 posts)For those with short memories, a similar provision was part of the expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Magazines and firearms that were banned from civilian ownership were to be marked "For Law Enforcement or Export Use Only" or similar, as pictured.
The relevant sections of the Bill passed by Congress are excerpted below.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c103:1:./temp/~c103CNdkHf:e644150:
(a) RESTRICTION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
`(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.
<snip>
`(4) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
<snip>
`(C) the possession, by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving a firearm, of a semiautomatic assault weapon transferred to the individual by the agency upon such retirement.
SEC. 110103. BAN OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.
(a) PROHIBITION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 110102(a), is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
`(w)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
`(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.
`(3) This subsection shall not apply to--
<snip>
`(C) the possession, by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving ammunition, of a large capacity ammunition feeding device transferred to the individual by the agency upon such retirement
The Federal law clearly established that retired law enforcement officers were super citizens, given powers far beyond those of mortal men. They had always been able under Federal law to keep assault weapons and large capacity magazines for their personal use after retirement.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)How long does the "special training" and "moral and ethical standards" that LEOs use to justifying privileges that regular folks don't get last after they retire?
I'd give them 6 months, then whatever superior training skills and/or ethical and moral standards they are alleged to have are pretty much gone, and they're just regular Californians, who are subject to the same over-regulation, bad regulation, and anti-gun policies that the Legislature chooses to inflict upon regular Californians.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Is anyone honestly surprised that the police want the rules to apply to others instead of themselves?
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Hasn't their union and their political associations been supportive of the restrictions placed on the Citizens?